Magic in Science
opinion Invariably whenever science and magic are associated it is in the context of the sensational color changes and other effects the young practitioner learns of in his ChemCraft or Edmund instruction hook, or perhaps the expedient used by desperate teachers to engender an otherwise dormant interest. But the relationship to he drawn in this writing is in a more serious vein, for I mean to make the point that a t its heart science is essentially and quite literally magical. It is no secret that there currently exists on a global scale a reservoir of antagonism toward science. And recently many articles and hooks have appeared dealing with the various aspects of this issue.' Among scientists, for example, the controversy has been manifested in a renewal of the historical dialogues between empiricists and those who embrace an ah initio approach to nature. But on a far more comprehensive scale critics outside of organized science have inveighed against the tendency of modern science to adopt what appears to be non-humanistic smugness, and with i t an implied absolutist attitude toward the universe. As scientists, I feel it would be a grievous mistake to dismiss this matter as yet another misapprehension of our art. We must recognize that beneath the turbulent surface there lies a consequential and lasting verity that won't evaporate if and when the times and climate improve. While it might prove impossible to document my case, I would be prepared to testify without reservation that I somehow came through my scientific education imbued with the underlying presumption that science was a purely rational pursuit, that any and all questions would yield to the appropriate experiment in time. I have since come to seriously doubt this supposition, hut I see in this development not a shortcoming, a loss of faith if you will, but rather a very positive growth toward a more effective practice. So what I'm trying to say here is that teachers of science must not avoid nor neglect mentioning what we do not, and indeed may well never know. The modern perspective of science should be stressed, frought as it is with a healthy uncertainty. I recall my introduction to the theory of gravity. Here was an elegant relationship formulated by Newton which was consistent with all the observations. But by some process the equation got translated to me as an explanation of gravity, and somehow I was inequipped to realize that what I was heing told was anything hut an explanation. How, I now wonder, would my venerable professor have reacted had I the insight to insist on more than a mathematical representation of the effect, to ask for some mechanism which could be conceptualized? I can assure you that if you would open any reputable dictionary to the word "magic" you will find no more an apt example than in gravity. By what mysterious force can two objects in a vacuum exert a mutually attractive force? There are no wires, nothing u p my sleeve. The idea of "fields", I assure you, will not dispel my inclination for the use of the tern magic.
Nowhere was the ambivalence more evident than in the classes on quantum mechanics, a true triumph of mathematics. The closest I ever saw an instructor come to abject surrender to the black forces was in the corpusclewave discussion. I t seemed that we were, in effect, heing told that the easiest way to assimilate such a startling contradiction into our experience was to more or less accept it on faith for the time being. To dwell upon it too long could only he counterproductive since it simply did n o t l e n d itself to a n a l o g y . ~ ~ e r h a pthe s central Gdhlem. here is relatively trivial; it's just that we cannot intuit all that we can otherwise quite satisfactorily express in mathematical terminology. However, I would contend that the designation magic is still entirely descriptive. One area of current intensive activity and interest which bodes a gainful future for science is cosmology, where it is almost trite to say that the more we know, the less we know. Within the past few years a spate of intriguing papers has appeared concerning the nature of the universe and its laws, the constancy of its constants, its beginning(~)and end(s). At issue is the very essence of reality and existence. A recent article in Nature deals with the latest developments relating to the question of the arbitrariness of the universe.= At this point I sense a need to reaffirm my abiding commitment to science, as I see it. For I have experienced no dampening of the, thrill and wonder I have always felt in watching crystals grow, or glimpsing a meteorite streak across the sky. And I still get very excited when an apparently successful experiment tends to corroborate a conjecture, though I now accept such results in a slightly different light. Now there is no arrogance. On a less suhiective level. I an offerine these thouehts because in adopting or a t least appreciating such an outlook a healing might be forthcoming in the rift now separating the romantics and the technologists. In no sense is it a surrender on the Dart of the scientist. It is only an incorporation of the realization that the world in which we find ourselves has infinite possibilities (including the off-chance that we will someday truly know it). But i t is bv no means a waste of our time to observe. quantify, and systematize the phenomena about us and within us. There can be no more meaningful calling. From the micro to the macro the sheer magic of our existence is a wondrous thing to realize and to instill into a proper - . scientific education.8
Martin Dines Exxon Research and Engineering Company Linden, New Jersey 07036 b r n o n g the m;lut .,I?oi w o r e d ~ w . m q e ! h # i ph~nomcnon*he !lllnv.na rxo a n ,cp.cun,ar.\e i T ~ q n r . Ob,r:r,o-,t~B,cnm r 3 -6, 13-4 an4 h. b P r.lp. v p n *,.d A,, I i 31' to:c,r~c byrn \ I and Co.. he.. New York 19id
.,,
.
reality imposed bsevo~urion.
Volume 52, Number 6, June 1975 / 369
~
~
~
~
